http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8894
--- Comment #1 from Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org> 2010-03-10 21:47:34 ---
There was some recent discussion around whether the editor of a document (who
seems to be free to change the document while the issue is still being
discussed and is still open) can also submit alternative change proposals,
no-change proposals, etc., each with separate rationales.
The result is a lot of confusion about what's even on the table, and whether
the proposals are addressing the same or different problems, and also about the
timing of proposals and counter-proposals, which get us all caught up in the
mechanics without much focus on the actual issues.
My own experience in a lot of standards groups has been that you can make
better progress if you separate out the first step, of understanding whether
there is agreement around the "problem description", from the second step
getting agreement around the "proposed solutions" for a problem.
To clarify: the "bug" is that the current *actual* process here is confusing,
and seems to be leading the working group in circles around ISSUE-66.
It seems like the proposed fix is just to document the current process in the
"decision policy" document doesn't seem likely it will resolve the "bug", does
it?
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.